Having reviewed the record as a
whole, we conclude that it contains evidence that would permit a reasonable
person to conclude that petitioner's psychotic disorder, which is
"episodic" in nature, is in remission rather than resolved. A
detailed recitation of petitioner's history would not benefit the bench, the
bar, or the public. Suffice it to say that, prior to 2004, petitioner had a
long history of psychotic episodes; one earlier diagnosis (Exhibit 26, cited in
PSRB's order) indicates that the "[r]ecords reflect episodes of paranoid
delusions sometimes accompanied by auditory hallucinations dating back to
1966," and that he "seems to have long periods of relatively minimal
symptoms." Even Fritz, as recently as July 2005, recognized that, in the
past, petitioner "has repeatedly had substantial psychotic symptoms,
likely not explainable by substance abuse."

Also, Fritz reported in February 2005
that petitioner approached him and asked for a statement to the effect that he was
no longer mentally ill. Fritz told petitioner that he would not give such a
statement:

"Furthermore, I indicated to the patient that such a statement
would not necessarily be in his favor, as I do believe that he has at least
a history of a psychotic disorder with potential for relapse, as well as
complications from a personality disorder and a distant history of
polysubstance abuse."

(Emphasis added.) In his July 2005 progress notes, Fritz
stated that petitioner "carries the diagnosis of psychotic disorder, not
otherwise specified, resolved." Yet, in the same progress notes, Fritz
later stated, "These more clearly psychotic symptoms, as outlined above, appear
to be in remission currently, although the patient certainly remains
mistrustful and has some difficulty in managing interpersonal relationships
without being irritable and frustrated." (Emphasis added.)

Given petitioner's extensive history
of diagnosis with a psychotic disorder; the fact that previous diagnoses have
indicated that the disorder is episodic in nature with long periods of
remission; the fact that his own treating physician stated, less than a year
before the hearing, that petitioner's "more clearly psychotic symptoms * *
* appear to be in remission"; and the fact that petitioner remained
mistrustful and suspicious at that time, we find that there is evidence in the
record from which a reasonable person could conclude that, at the time of the
hearing, petitioner's psychotic disorder was in a period of remission rather
than resolved.

As the Supreme Court explained in a
previous case involving petitioner, evidence that is a year old or more does
not automatically lack probative value. Einstein, 330 Or at 128. Thus,
PSRB was entitled to review the record as a whole, including the earlier
diagnoses regarding the episodic nature of his disorder, Fritz's more recent
observation that petitioner's psychotic symptoms were in remission, and
petitioner's continued mistrust and suspiciousness. That record permitted the
board to draw the reasonable inference that a psychotic disorder persisted at
the time of the hearing, albeit in remission. Conversely, PSRB was not compelled
to find Fritz's and Starkenburg's testimony persuasive. Id. at 128 n 4
(noting that PSRB is not required to accept testimony without considering the entire
record); Martin v. PSRB, 312 Or 157, 167, 818 P2d 1264 (1991)
("PSRB does not count the witnesses; it weighs the evidence.").